| Signal Capital Holdings Corp. v Banc of Am. Leasing & Capital, LLC |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08640 [101 AD3d 488] |
| December 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Signal Capital Holdings Corp., Individually, as Successor in Interest
by Assignment and Merger to SCAP Associates, L.L.C., Respondent, v Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC, as Successor in Interest to First of St. Louis Leasing Corporation No. 1 and Another, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1]
Jenner & Block LLP, New York (Brian J. Fischer of counsel), for respondent.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 23, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
This dispute over the meaning of the ambiguous contract term "the date of scheduled expiration of the Leases" does not fall within the parties' narrow alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause providing for an independent financial professional to verify certain calculations based on a dollar figure for rental income as of that date (see McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 858 F2d 825 [2d Cir 1988]). The focus of the ADR clause is a mathematical calculation; contract interpretation would be outside the expertise of the independent accountant acting as verifier (see Fit Tech, Inc. v Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F3d 1, 8 [1st Cir 2004]).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.